coastalcph/lex_glue huggingface dataset:
4.  The applicant company was founded in 1991 with the aim of constructing a gas supply network for the town of Szentgotthárd.
5.  On 27 January 1993 the Veszprém District Mining Authority issued a permit for another company, authorising it to construct principal gas pipe sections in two streets in Szentgotthárd. On 8 February 1993 the applicant filed an administrative appeal. On 12 March 1993 the National Mining Authority dismissed the appeal, holding that the applicant had no locus standi. The applicant sought judicial review on 5 April 1993.
6.  After two hearings, on 20 September 1993 the Veszprém District Court quashed the administrative decisions.
7.  On appeal, on 7 February 1994 the Veszprém County Regional Court quashed this decision and dismissed the applicant's action. It held that the plaintiff had no locus standi in the case, because it could not prove that – in accordance with section 327(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure – the subject matter concerned its rights or lawful interests. Nor could the applicant company (which itself had not been a party to the administrative proceedings) prove – as required by section 72(1) of the Code of Administrative Procedure – that it had suffered prejudice to its lawful interests.
8.  On 28 March 1994 the applicant filed a petition for review. The Supreme Court held hearings on 20 and 27 November 1995. On the latter occasion, the applicant declared that another administrative litigation concerning its licence to supply gas was in progress. The Supreme Court suspended the proceedings pending the outcome of the other case.
9.  After the second-instance court on 25 September 2003 had finally dismissed the applicant's action concerning the licence, the Supreme Court resumed the proceedings. On 8 January 2004 it upheld the Regional Court's decision. It endorsed the reasoning of the second-instance decision, and refuted the applicant's allegation that it had been deprived of its locus standi without an examination of the merits of the case. In the court's view, the fact that, after having deduced in a detailed analysis that the applicant company had no locus standi in the case, the Regional Court had not embarked on an examination of the underlying administrative dispute did not amount to a denial of justice.
5.  The applicants are all Turkish nationals and live in Diyarbakır.
6.  Until 4 May 1999 the applicants were employed as manual workers by the Diyarbakır Sur Municipality (“the Municipality”). On that date, the Municipality discharged 153 employees, including the applicants, without paying their wages, a dismissal indemnity or any other pecuniary rights to which they were entitled pursuant to domestic labour law.
7.  On 2 June 1999 the applicants brought separate actions for compensation against the Municipality before the Diyarbakır Labour Court.
8.  On 11 November 1999 the court ruled in their favour and ordered the Municipality to pay 743,859,795 Turkish liras (TRL)[1] to Mr Demirhan, TRL 1,000,000,000[2] to Mr Görsav and TRL 774,821,795[3] to Mr Çelik, plus statutory interest running from 2 June 1999. It also ruled that the legal costs and expenses of the proceedings should be borne by the Municipality.
9.  In the absence of an appeal, the judgments became final on 11 November 1999.
10.  On an unspecified date, the applicants initiated enforcement proceedings against the Municipality. However, their efforts proved futile as the Municipality refused to comply with the judgments.
11.  On 15 February 2001 and 21 March 2001 the applicants' representative requested the Diyarbakır Governor's Office and the Ministry of Internal Affairs to intervene on their behalf in order to facilitate the enforcement of the court's judgments.
12.  On 9 May 2001 the Diyarbakır Governor's Office informed the applicants' representative that they had written to the Municipality requesting them to redress the applicants' grievances. However, the Municipality did not make any payment since it was underfunded.
13.  On 20 June 2002 Mr Mehdi Görsav reached a friendly settlement agreement with the Municipality. The friendly settlement protocol stipulated that the applicant would waive all of his claims, including the principal amount of compensation determined by the Labour Court, interest and all costs and fees, if he were to be paid TRL 1,025,815,000. The protocol also stated the applicant would receive this sum in five instalments. Between 27 June 2002 and 21 November 2002 this amount was paid to the applicant.
14.  In the meantime, Mr Fırat Çelik initiated enforcement proceedings in order to recover his compensation. However, on 19 December 2002 his case was struck out by the enforcement office since he did not pursue his application.
15.  By letters dated 6 January 2005 the Municipality invited Mr Fırat Çelik and Mr Nezir Demirhan to receive within seven days the principal amount awarded by the Labour Court. However, the applicants declined the invitation since the sum offered did not cover the interest, costs and fees awarded by the Labour Court.
6.  The applicant was born in 1967 and lives in Moscow.  He was an investor in Russian Credit, a private bank which is now insolvent.
7.  In 1998 and 1999 the applicant won two legal actions against the bank. Unable to recover his investment despite the judgments in his favour, the applicant instituted numerous sets of proceedings against the bank and various authorities involved in its insolvency.
8.  In April 2000 188,900 of the bank's creditors joined together to form a union, obtained a settlement with the bank and asked the Commercial Court of Moscow to ratify it. 221 creditors disagreed with the settlement. Some of them, including the applicant, lodged their written objections with the court.
9.  The Commercial Court of Moscow heard the case in four hearings which took place on 10, 11, 14, and 15 August 2000. The court gave notice of the hearings to the 221 creditors who had objected to the settlement, representatives of the creditors' union and representatives of the bank. Since the applicant received the notice only on 14 August 2000, he was able to participate in the last hearing only. According to the applicant, on 15 August 2000 the judge refused to hear his pleadings on the ground that they were essentially the same as those of the other creditors.
10.  Access to the court building was restricted throughout the proceedings. On 10 August 2000 a policeman standing at the entrance turned away twenty to twenty-five people who wished to enter the courtroom but who did not have a notice to appear or an identity card. On each of the following days about three to five people wishing to attend the hearings were refused access to the court building. At each hearing a number of seats in the courtroom remained free.
11.  On 15 August 2000 the Commercial Court of Moscow ratiﬁed the settlement. The applicant appealed.
12.  On 9 October 2000 the Appeals Division of the Commercial Court of Moscow upheld the settlement. The applicant participated in the hearing, pleaded his case and submitted written arguments. Disagreeing with the judgment, the applicant appealed on points of law.
13.  On 1 December 2000 the Federal Commercial Court of the Moscow Circuit dismissed the appeal on points of law. The applicant participated in the hearing, pleaded his case and submitted written arguments.
14.  Public access to the appeal hearings was also restricted. Both appeal courts ignored the applicant's complaint that the first-instance hearings had not been public.
5.  The applicant was born in 1942 and lives in Chişinău. She is a pensioner.
6.  The facts of the case, as submitted by the parties, may be summarised as follows.
7.  The applicant worked for a company in Chişinău. Besides her salary, she allegedly received fees, which were transferred to an account opened for her in the company's name. After retirement, she requested the company to transfer to her account all the fees accumulated (which she estimated at 25,278 United States Dollars (USD)). When the company refused to do so, she initiated court proceedings.
8.  She asked the court to waive the obligation to pay court fees on the ground of her poor financial situation. In particular, she produced evidence showing that her only income was a monthly State pension of 102 Moldovan lei (MDL), equivalent to 8.7 euros (EUR) which barely allowed her to survive.
9.  On 28 April 2000 the Râşcani District Court exempted the applicant from the payment of court fees because of her poor financial situation. On 31 January 2001 the court rejected her action and ordered the applicant to pay court fees of MDL 9,600 (EUR 826).
10.  The Chişinău Regional Court requested pre-payment of additional court fees for examining her appeal. The court reduced those fees by half (from the original MDL 7,200 to MDL 3,600 (EUR 307)) “taking into account the provisions of Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure and the financial situation of [the applicant]”.
11.  The applicant signed two summonses forms informing the parties about the dates of the next hearings (30 October 2001 and 20 November 2001), which also included the phrase “[Appellant] Malahova A.S. shall pay in court fees 3,600 [MDL]”.
12.  On 29 October 2001 the applicant requested the court to waive the court fees altogether given her financial situation (her pension was MDL 143 (EUR 12.2) by that time) and the labour-related character of her claim (she argued that her unpaid fees amounted to “other claims related to work activities” and, according to the law, she should be exempted from court fees). She relied on Article 88 (1) of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 below).
13.  On 20 November 2001 the court refused to examine her case because she had failed to pay the court fees. It did not analyse her financial situation or respond to her claim that the case concerned payment for work performed and, as such, was not subject to the payment of court fees.
14.  In her appeal the applicant invoked her inability to pay the court fees and relied on the evidence of her small pension, as well as on the fact that her husband was unemployed and had no income. She relied on Article 89 of the Code of Civil Procedure (see paragraph 16 below).
15.  On 10 January 2002 the Court of Appeal upheld the lower court's decision. The court, without referring to the applicant's sources of income or analysing her financial situation other than referring to the documents already in the file, found that the applicant had not presented proof of her inability to pay the court fees. The decision was final.
4.  The applicant, Mr Grigoriy Yakovlevich Mavrodiy, is a Ukrainian national who was born in 1931 and lives in Mykolayiv. He was the only owner and director of the “Primula” private construction enterprise.
5.  On 24 June 1998 the Odessa Regional Arbitration Court ordered the Chornomorskyi Housing Unit of the Odessa Military District (Квартирно-експлуатаційна частина Чорноморського району Одеського військового округу) to pay the applicant's enterprise UAH 21,350[1] under a construction contract. The judgment became final and the writ of execution was transferred to the Bailiffs' Service for enforcement. However, it was not enforced due to lack of funds on the debtor's current account.
6.  On 26 December 2001 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court, upon the applicant's request, ordered the enforcement of the judgment of 24 June 1998 by attaching the debtor's property.
7.  On 14 November 2002 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant as the enforcement proceedings were terminated due to the debtor's lack of funds.
8.  On 23 December 2003 the Odessa Regional Commercial Court rejected the applicant's request to declare the Ministry of Defence a debtor in the enforcement proceedings. On 18 February 2004 the Odessa Commercial Court of Appeal upheld this ruling.
9.  In March 2004 the applicant lodged with the Kyiv City Commercial Court a claim against the Ministry of Defence and the Chornomorskyi Housing Unit seeking compensation for pecuniary and non-pecuniary damage caused by the failure to enforce the judgment of 24 June 1998. On 20 May 2004 the applicant's claim was left without consideration for failure to pay the court fee.
10.  The judgment given in the applicant's favour by the Odessa Regional Arbitration Court on 24 June 1998 remains unenforced.
4.  The applicant was born in 1940 and lives in the town of Kremenchuk.
5.   On 15 December 1997 the applicant was dismissed from his position at the Instrumentalnyy Zavod Company (hereafter the “Company”).
6.  On 16 February 1998 the applicant instituted proceedings seeking his reinstatement and compensation for the loss of salary.
7.  On 4 June 1999 the Kryukivsky District Court of Kremenchuk (hereafter “the District Court”) rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.
8.  On 5 August 1999 the Poltava Regional Court (hereafter “the Regional Court”) upheld this judgment.
9.  On 10 February 2000, at the applicant's request, the Deputy President of the Supreme Court lodged with the Regional Court a protest against these decisions.
10.  On 29 February 2000 the Presidium of the Regional Court quashed the decisions of 4 June 1999 and 5 August 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh consideration. It indicated that the courts had failed to establish all relevant facts, particularly concerning the applicant's productivity and qualifications.
11.  On 24 October 2000 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.
12.  On 14 December 2000 the Regional Court quashed this decision and remitted the case for a fresh consideration stating that the first instance court had failed to give appropriate consideration to the issue of the applicant's qualifications.
13.  On 19 November 2001 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.
14.  On 31 January 2002 the Poltava Regional Court of Appeal (the former Poltava Regional Court, hereafter “the Court of Appeal”) quashed this decision and ordered a fresh consideration on the ground that the first instance court's reasoning was insufficient.
15.  On 15 July 2002 the District Court rejected the applicant's claim as unsubstantiated.
16.  On 5 November 2002 the Court of Appeal quashed this judgment and dismissed the applicant's claim as being out of time. The applicant did not appeal in cassation.
6.  The applicant was born in 1966 and lives in the Rostov Region.
7.  On 28 June 1999 the applicant obtained a judgment of the Shakhty Town Court of the Rostov Region by which social-security authorities were to pay him a certain amount in respect of previously unpaid emoluments.
8.  In 2002, the applicant received the amount due under the judgment.
9.  On 25 January 2007 the applicant and the Shakhty Department of Labour and Social Development entered into a friendly settlement, according to which the Department was to pay the applicant compensation of 3,000 euros (“EUR”) for the delay in enforcement of the above judgment and 914.56 Russian roubles in respect of postal expenses in the Strasbourg proceedings. In exchange, the applicant was to abandon his claims relating to untimely payments. On the same date the Shakhty Town Court approved the settlement.
10.  The amounts indicated in the settlement were credited into the applicant's bank account.
4.  The applicant was born in 1949 and lives in the village of Bukachacha in the Chita Region.
5.  Since 1986 the applicant suffers from a work-related illness. In 1999 he instituted proceedings against his former employer, a mining company, and the Social Insurance Fund of the Russian Federation (hereafter – the Fund) seeking compensation for damage.
6.  On 21 September 1999 the Chernyshevskiy District Court of the Chita Region found in the applicant's favour and awarded the applicant 42,126.40 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
7.  In November 2000 the former employer asked the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court to review the judgment of 21 September 1999. On 9 January 2001 the acting prosecutor of the Chita Region lodged an application for a supervisory review of that judgment.
8.  On 15 March 2001 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 21 September 1999 and remitted the case for a fresh examination. The applicant attended the supervisory-review hearing.
9.  On 16 October 2002 the Chernyshevskiy District Court awarded the applicant RUR 751.44 in compensation for pecuniary damage and RUR 12,000 in compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
10.  On 28 March 2003 the Fund asked the Presidium of the Regional Court to re-examine the case by way of supervisory review.
11.  On 26 June 2003 the Presidium of the Chita Regional Court, by way of the supervisory-review proceedings, quashed the judgment of 16 October 2002, re-examined the matter and dismissed the applicant's claims in respect of pecuniary damage. The award in respect of non-pecuniary damage remained unaffected. The Presidium noted that the District Court had incorrectly assessed and applied substantive legal norms. The applicant was not summonsed to the hearing.
4.  The applicant was born in 1948 and lives in Mykolayiv.
5.  On 26 August 1998 the Voznesensk Court ordered the “Scherbany” private agricultural company (hereafter “the Company”) to pay the applicant his share of UAH 32,112[1].
6.  Between 12 October 1998 and December 1999 the Voznesensk City Bailiffs' Service (hereafter “the Bailiffs”) attached and sold three cars belonging to the Company, following which the applicant was paid UAH 7,130.40[2].
7.  On 26 September 2002 the Voznesensk Court, following the applicant's complaint, declared the Bailiffs' failure to enforce in total the above-mentioned judgment unlawful.
8.  On 4 November 2003 the Mykolaiv Regional Department of Justice informed the applicant that the judgment of 26 August 1998 had not been enforced in full due to the Company's lack of funds. The above-mentioned judgment remains unenforced until present.
9.  In November 2002 the applicant instituted proceedings against the Bailiffs seeking compensation for damage caused by unreasonable delay in execution of the judgment given in his favour.
10.  On 15 February 2003 the Voznesensk Court allowed the applicant's claim and awarded him UAH 925[3] in compensation for moral damage. The judgment was not appealed within a statutory one-month time-limit and entered into force on 17 March 2003.
11.  On 27 March 2003 the Bailiffs opened the enforcement proceedings and on 13 May 2003 the writ of execution was sent to the Voznesensk Department of the State Treasury.
12.  On 19 September 2003 the writ of execution was returned to the applicant due to the lack of the debtor's funds.
13.  On 29 December 2003 the Voznesensk Court, upon the applicant's claim, found unlawful the Bailiffs' failure to enforce the judgment of 15 February 2003 and ordered to reinstate the enforcement proceedings.
14.  On 8 July 2004 the Bailiffs transferred UAH 925 to the applicant's bank account and the enforcement proceedings were terminated on 15 July 2004.
5.  The applicant was born in 1956 and lives in the town of Ryazan in the Ryazan Region. He is a former military officer.
6.  In 2002 the applicant sued his military unit for wage arrears for his military service in 1996 when he had taken part in a military operation in Tajikistan.
7.  On 22 February 2002 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison upheld the action and awarded the applicant 163,732.80 Russian roubles (RUR). The judgment was not appealed against and became final.
8.  On 3 April 2002 the applicant received a writ of execution and submitted it to the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury. On 26 April 2002, after the Ryazan Office of the State Treasury had refused to execute the judgement, the applicant submitted the writ to the Ministry of Finance of the Russian Federation.
9.  On 30 September 2002 the applicant was discharged from the army.
10.  On 16 July 2003 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of a supervisory review, quashed the judgment of 22 February 2002 and remitted the case for a fresh examination to the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison.
11.  On 15 September 2003 the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison decided not to examine the action as the applicant had defaulted at two hearings.
12.  On 12 August 2004 the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation, acting on a supervisory review, found that the applicant had not been duly summonsed to the hearings before the Military Court of the Ryazan Garrison, quashed the judgment of 16 July 2003 and the decision of 15 September 2003 and ordered a re-examination of the case by the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command.
13.  On 15 September 2004 the Presidium of the Military Court of the Moscow Command, by way of supervisory-review proceedings, re-examined the case, awarded the applicant RUR 56,311.20 and dismissed the remainder of his claims.
14.  In January 2005 the applicant asked the Military Section of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to initiate a supervisory review in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004. On 3 May 2005 the request was dismissed.
15.  In July 2005 the applicant unsuccessfully requested the President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation to quash the judgment of 15 September 2004 by way of a supervisory review. On 10 August 2005 the Vice President of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation refused to institute supervisory-review proceedings in respect of the judgment of 15 September 2004.
5.  On 27 March 1999, during a television broadcast, the head of the Department for Combating Organised Crime and Corruption, N. A., accused Valeriu Matei, the then Vice-President of Parliament and President of one of the political parties represented in Parliament, of corruption and, together with a mafia gang, of protecting several companies allegedly involved in criminal activities. He stated, inter alia, that:
“...Mr Matei should have been arrested as he has committed both a criminal offence and a minor administrative offence... A criminal file concerning protecting criminals will be sent to the Prosecutor's Office and to the court... These companies [which were suspected of being involved in criminal activities] are being protected by the criminal gang headed by M. and by Mr Matei from Parliament...”
6.  On 30 March 1999 Flux published an article entitled “The anti-corruption war: General N.A. versus President Matei. Nicolae Alexei claims that Valeriu Matei is providing political protection to a mafia clan.”
7.  The article contained a word-by-word account of the televised broadcast of 27 March 1999 and the newspaper's commentary.
8.  On 30 April 1999 Valeriu Matei brought a civil defamation action against Flux and argued that a large number of N.A.'s statements published by Flux were untrue and defamatory of him. The title of the article was not among those statements.
9.  On 20 February 2003, by a final judgment, the Court of Appeal found that the statements complained of by Valeriu Matei were not defamatory of him, inter alia, because Flux had simply reproduced N.A.'s statements. However, it found that the following part of the article's title was defamatory of Valeriu Matei: “N.A. claims that Valeriu Matei is providing political protection to a mafia clan”. The court found that no such sentence had been pronounced by N.A. during the broadcast of 27 March 1999 and that the newspaper had not adduced evidence to prove that Valeriu Matei was a member of a mafia clan. The court ordered the newspaper to pay the plaintiff 3,600 Moldovan Lei (MDL) and to issue an apology within fifteen days. The newspaper was also ordered to pay the court fees.